Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

***Arcticdude*** · (This post was last modified: 04-02-2014 23:59 by Arcticdude.)

That's what makes fixing problems like this (and even more so the BB because its a tiny situation compared to the normal issues) so impossibly unfixable. You have so many hands in the pot, you can't possibly get them all doing right at the same time.

RM- I've very rarely been called subtle or tactful! Big Grin

Of course, that's why I work for myself!

davidbrady · 04-03-2014, 00:07

(04-02-2014 23:56)dentmac Wrote: .... or allowed by NHTSA to be unethically modified in a cover up attempt as with GM.

We're still trying to figure this out, aren't we? The crux of the issue is whether there was a cover up by GM, right? To be fair, they are innocent until proven guilty. It is possible that Delphi changed the part on their own w/o any GM involvement.

dentmac · 04-03-2014, 00:21

Didn't an Engineer "Sign off "specifically for the change?

(04-03-2014 00:07)davidbrady Wrote:
(04-02-2014 23:56)dentmac Wrote: .... or allowed by NHTSA to be unethically modified in a cover up attempt as with GM.

We're still trying to figure this out, aren't we? The crux of the issue is whether there was a cover up by GM, right? To be fair, they are innocent until proven guilty. It is possible that Delphi changed the part on their own w/o any GM involvement.

davidbrady · (This post was last modified: 04-03-2014 00:57 by davidbrady.)

Maybe Hish can chime in here on how Tier suppliers work, but the way I understand it an engineering spec between the automaker and Tier supplier for a particular part is like a contract where the details relevant to that specific automaker are spelled out and those not relevant are allowed to be changed by the Tier supplier. Other automakers may have a different spec for the same part with different restrictions. Suppliers may make changes to reduce costs, improve performance, or increase reliability, etc. As long as they still fulfill the contract with the automakers these changes are allowed. Changes like these may not necessarily show up as a different part number to the automaker, but will be recorded as a revision or change order at the Tier supplier. In these sorts of cases an automaker's "signoff" may be a formality.

From what I've read I think the courts are still trying to determine what GM knew, when they knew it, and if they spec-ed a part change to fix a known defect.

dentmac · 04-03-2014, 10:22

There are two issues, (with GM and BB)

A fraudulent cover-up. (no verdict in the GM )

The failure of NHTSA to act.

"Suppliers may make changes to reduce costs, improve performance, or increase reliability, etc. As long as they still fulfill the contract with the automakers these changes are allowed. "
But here with GM the change appears solely to correct a safety defect-- A safety defect must be remedied retroactively. Not changing the part number here is the attempted cover-up.

With BB tie rod-- the tier supplier ,TVR "Cheapened" the product. It still appeared to meet the original 16,000 requirement so it was not an issue .The change was found when testing tried to increase the axle rating. The replacement appears to have the same part number. BB and Meritor considered passing liability down to their Tier suppliers but the general overweight issue was far beyond just the tie rods.

NHTSA --
Clarence Ditlow of the Center for Auto safety wrote that NHTSA should have acted:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/....html?_r=0

With BB-- NHTSA has not demanded a fix.and still has an open defect investigation since 2009.

davidbrady · (This post was last modified: 04-03-2014 11:03 by davidbrady.)

It is interesting in the Engineer's Eureka article I posted earlier, that the engineer couldn't identify anything wrong with the switch until he took apart a new one. Absent the new switch, the original switch looked functional and even correct. Granted this is somewhat sensational journalism and surely there's a lot the public doesn't know.

davidbrady · (04-11-2014)

More info on GM and the ignition switch: Bloomberg News. Piecing together the puzzle...

dentmac · 04-11-2014, 22:37

(04-11-2014 21:11)davidbrady Wrote: More info on GM and the ignition switch: Bloomberg News. Piecing together the puzzle...

Damning comments about GM…
“The documents also paint a picture of a company in denial and engaged in subterfuge. Though GM had two opportunities to fix the deadly ignition switch, it declined to do so because it would take too long and was too expensive.”
The above has strong similarities to the Blue Bird trial documents
Everyone trying to protect themselves. NHTSA is NOT the savior here.
“The general perception is that GM is slow to communicate, slow to act, and, at times, requires additional effort of ODI that we do not feel is necessary with some of your peers,” Frank Borris, head of NHTSA Office of Defect Investigation wrote in a note to GM’s director of product investigations in July 2013, complaining of the automaker’s inconsistency and lack of coordination on recalls.
GM should have had some corporate ethics once the problem was diagnosed and NHTSA should and could have acted far sooner.
NHTSA has a Compendium of rules and has the power to act and make things happen. ODI just looked the other way as Mr Ditlow of Auto Safety has indicated.
In the Blue Bird problem, Blue bird and NHTSA knew that the units were/are overweight. This was known during manufacture. Consumer fraud verdicts are there. NHTSA allowed and accepted changes to standard weighing procedures and never demanded a “Remedy” as per their Compendium. NHTSA allowed devious weight placards and as with GM, Blue bird has admitted that a “Fix” was too expensive. The court was even told that larger tires were installed. The percentage of complaints from owners and accidents/injuries per vehicle is far higher than in the GM case but still nothing.
But who’s bitter?

Ross